The High Court at Allahabad has dismissed a writ petition filed by an Assistant Teacher challenging her termination, ruling that appointments secured through fraud or forged documents are void ab initio. The Court emphasized that in cases where the very foundation of an appointment is tainted by fraud, the employer is not mandated to conduct a full-fledged departmental inquiry under service rules.
Background
The petitioner, Preeti Jaiswal, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 2010 following the completion of the Special BTC Training Course, 2008. Her eligibility was based on a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree obtained in 2000 from St. Andrew’s College, Gorakhpur, affiliated with Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University.
Years later, following complaints regarding the authenticity of her marks, an inquiry was initiated. A three-member committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of Gorakhpur University found discrepancies between the marks shown on the petitioner’s marksheet and the University’s original “counterfoil” or award sheets. On July 28, 2025, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Gorakhpur, passed an order cancelling her appointment with retrospective effect, directing the lodging of an FIR and the recovery of salary paid since 2010.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Siddharth Khare, argued that the termination was procedurally flawed as no regular departmental inquiry was conducted under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. He contended that the petitioner’s B.A. degree had not been formally cancelled by the University and that her marks matched the “tabulation register.” He further argued that the action was taken after an inordinate delay of 18 years of service.
The respondents, represented by the BSA and the University, countered that the inquiry conclusively proved interpolation. They stated that the petitioner’s score was unlawfully enhanced from 227 to 336. The University’s counsel submitted that original award sheets showed the petitioner had secured significantly lower marks (e.g., 06 marks in Psychology Paper II) compared to the inflated marks on her marksheet (51 marks). They argued that “fraud unravels all” and such appointments deserve no legal protection.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan framed several issues, primarily focusing on whether a regular inquiry was necessary and if the delay protected the petitioner.
1. On the Necessity of a Regular Inquiry: The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that a full-fledged disciplinary inquiry was a sine qua non for her removal.
“The present case does not pertain to an instance of misconduct committed during the course of service; rather, it strikes at the very root of the petitioner’s entry into service… It is trite law that where the initial appointment itself is void ab initio, the employer is not obliged to undertake a detailed disciplinary inquiry akin to punitive proceedings.”
2. Primacy of Primary Evidence (Counterfoil vs. Tabulation Register): The Court addressed the evidentiary value of University records, noting that the “counterfoil” (award sheet) is primary evidence prepared by examiners, while the tabulation register is derivative.
“A document derived from primary evidence, when itself stands vitiated by interpolation or alteration, cannot be accorded sanctity so as to override the primary record.”
3. On the Principle of Fraud: Citing several precedents, the Court held that fraud vitiates all solemn acts.
“The discovery of fraud at any stage confers jurisdiction upon the competent authority to take appropriate corrective measures, irrespective of the lapse of time… equity cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality.”
4. Legal Precedents Cited: The Court relied on several landmark judgments, including:
- State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh (1983) regarding the superiority of primary records.
- R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala (2004) holding that appointments secured on false certificates are void from inception.
- Radhe Shyam Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) affirming that foundational illegality is incurable by time.
Decision
The Court concluded that the mark sheet relied upon by the petitioner lacked authenticity and was a result of tampering. It held that the BSA was well within his jurisdiction to annul the appointment without a formal cancellation of the degree by the University’s Executive Council, as the employer has a legal obligation to verify eligibility.
The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated July 28, 2025. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the cancellation of appointment, recovery of salary, and criminal proceedings.
Case Details Block:
- Case Title: Preeti Jaiswal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 6 others
- Case No.: WRIT – A No. 11875 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan
- Counsel for Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Khare
- Counsel for Respondent(s): Sri Chandan Sharma (for respondent Nos. 4 and 5), Mr. Shailendra Singh (for respondent Nos. 1 and 2), Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi (for respondent Nos. 3, 6 and 7), and C.S.C.
- Date: April 3, 2026
